#BanBossy

In the new Ban Bossy campaign, stars like Jennifer Garner, Beyonce, and Jane Lynch team up to promote equality for women. The video states that being told you are “bossy” is a bad thing, especially for young girls, but in reality being bossy means you are “assertive, strong, and courageous,” as the CNN article “‘Ban Bossy’ campaign promotes equality” states.

Young girls are taught at a young age that being bossy is not acceptable, but boys are taught the opposite. In fact, they are praised for these qualities some call “bossy” because those qualities are what people look for in a leader.

So, why are girls told to not be “bossy” when these qualities lead to successful leadership? Anna Maria Chavez, CEO of Girl Scouts of America and Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s COO and Lean In author are trying to change “bossy”’s bad reputation.

Their campaign has spread all over my Facebook newsfeed as well as all of the sponsoring sites’ websites like Lifetime and Girls Scouts of America.

This is great public relations for Girls Scouts of America and LeanIn Nonprofit. Both of these organizations are relaying the same message of gender equality for women and supporting each other on their websites. Their celebrity endorsements with big names like Beyonce and Condoleezza Rice aren’t so bad either.

I agree with their message that women are taught at a young age not to speak their mind. I think it is empowering for women to learn this message and hope that it it relayed to younger generations. Ban the negativity around the word “bossy,” because being bossy shouldn’t be bad, but that you know what you want and you know how to stand up for it.

Check out BanBossy.com & the Girl Scouts Ban Bossy page.

Response to Obama’s new PR approach on “Between Two Ferns”

Scanning through my Facebook newsfeed this week I found quite a few links to Zach Galifianakis’ (or however you spell his name) online parody show “Between Two Ferns” with President Obama as his main guest. The hit Internet show makes guests feel “awkward and uncomfortable,” as the NYTimes article states.

I’ve seen his show a few times (I mean, who wouldn’t be curious to see Zach G. make fun of Justin Bieber?) and it seemed pretty odd that the President of the United States would be willing to be made fun of publicly. As my classmate Michaela Thiel stated in her blog post on the topic, “[Obama] did have an agenda behind his reasoning for appearing on this show.”

In my opinion, this was great PR for Obama, especially in light of his target audience through this show, which are people like me. This kind of move shows his urge for young Americans to sign up for his new health insurance, and he directed viewers to the actual website, healthcare.gov, which Zach makes fun of.

This kind of move also shows how “hip,” as Thiel mentioned, Obama is and what kind of lengths he will go to catch his audience’s attention. He’s willing to be made fun of publicly, which is pretty huge for a President of a country to do.

Thiel refers to the article, “Obama’s New Approach Takes a Humorous Turn” on NYTimes.com that talks about the strategy behind Obama’s message in this video. As Thiel mentions, “the president’s senior adviser stated that this was an attempt to find new ways to break through.” The deadline for enrolling in “Obama care” is approaching at the end of March; Obama’s staff wanted one final strategy to increase the count.

Obama hasn’t just subjected himself to Zach G., but was interviewed recently by “The View” and has appeared on Jimmy Fallon’s Late Night show to “slow jam” the news. He also has held Google+ “hangouts,” which are similar to Skype, and also did an interview with Zillow.com, a real estate listings website.

In my opinion, Obama is doing a pretty good job merging into my generation’s media. In the “slow jam” video with Jimmy Fallon, Obama seemed more personable. He, of course, was his usual professional self, but with a hint on comedy, which interested me.

Overall, attracting my generation isn’t easy, and upcoming generations are becoming even more difficult to reach. I hope Obama keeps up the public relations strategies because, honestly, I don’t pay attention to Obama, unless he’s sitting between two ferns.

 

Don’t forget to check out Michaela Thiel’s blog post “Obama’s Appearance on ‘Between Two Ferns'”

Obama’s Appearance on “Between Two Ferns”

Samuel Adams beer pulls sponsorship for St. Patrick’s Day parade

How influential is gay rights to a beer company? Obviously pretty influential considering Boston Beer Company, maker of Samuel Adams, publicly announced that they would not be participating in this year’s St. Patrick’s Day parade in Boston.

The parade organizers, Allied Veterans War Council, announced that they are not allowing LGBTQ groups from marching. In February they announced that LGBTQ groups could march as long as they were not promoting their orientation. MassEquality, the LGBTQ advocacy group who put together the march apparently lied about the number of participants who would be marching in the parade, which, in turn, made the Allied War Veterans Council compose a ridiculous press release to MassEquality, which is also shown on the South Boston Parade website.

“We will not allow anyone to express harmful or inappropriate messages. This was a decision we made for the good of this parade. Keep in mind, we are approached by all types of groups. Some of which try to destroy the integrity of not only this parade, but our faith, this town and our Country. And to those we say, “No!, stay home, Not in my town… We invite all to join us to celebrate this historic event, but we must maintain our guidelines to insure the enjoyment and public safety of our spectators.”

And, as they should, MassEquality wrote back, “We are quite disappointed that the Allied War Veterans Council will not lets us fly our colors as we march” (Boston.com).

In response to the two groups’ controversy, Boston Beer Co. from the Washington Times article stated, “We were hopeful that both sides of this issue would be able to come to an agreement that would allow everyone, regardless of orientation, to participate in the parade. But given the current status of the negotiations, we realize this may not be possible.”

Not only did Boston Beer Co. remove their sponsorship, but other corporate heads such as Gillette, Heineken, and the Westin Boston Waterfront Hotel did as well.

The South Boston Parade website listed its supporters, but now reads “We’re updating our supporters, thank you for your patience.” 

In a PR perspective, I’m impressed by the Allied Veterans War Council’s press release, but disappointed by their stance. I understand that they want to keep the public safe to “insure enjoyment,” but how reckless can a group of LGBTQ veterans be during a St. Patty’s Day march in the middle of Boston?

It upsets me how unrealistic a group, in charge of putting together a St. Patrick’s Day parade, can be. I doubt they will see the support of Boston Beer Co., Gillette, or many other beer companies, for future parades put together by the Allied War Veterans Council. 

Check out the many articles I used for this blog post:

http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/14/pf/heineken-sam-adams-parades/index.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/14/sam-adams-beer-brewer-refuses-parade-wont-allow-ga/

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/03/12/gay-veterans-push-back-against-organizers-patrick-day-parade/pqqRhyHp0mCDQ6hcAbojFL/story.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/03/14/boston_st_patrick_s_day_parade_sponsors_flee_boston_s_homophobic_parade.html

Gender equality for women is a growing issue for the LDS church

Equality for women is growing in the Mormon church. You’re thinking, “Women are just now gaining equality?” It’s 2014, and just two years ago in October 2012 the LDS church announced two big changes for women of the Mormon faith. The church lowered the age requirement for women missionaries from 21 to 19 and extended the allotted time from one and a half years of missionary work to two years.

The NY Times article “Mormons signal a growing role for Mormon Women” details two young women’s missions in Korea, their aspirations outside of the church norms, and their requirements as female missionaries.

Growing up in the church myself I found the traditional values the LDS church holds for women such a normal thing. It wasn’t until I got older that I realized that women were becoming much more independent than how the church held its females’ values.

The article states that if the church does not update its “ideas about gender” it will be “out of step with contemporary life.”

In a PR perspective, I think the Mormon church is headed in the right direction. Women are going to keep pursuing independence whether the church agrees or not. They cannot keep limiting the female’s standards compared to mens, especially in this day and age. Gender roles are constantly being tested.

The next step for the Mormon church, in terms of public image, is to fully support the LGBTQ movement. In recent years, the LDS church has participated in Gay Pride parades in Utah to show support to gay men and women. Though they are not in support of same-sex marriage, they have made a public stance to acknowledge gay individuals and have said it is not a sin to have feelings, only to act upon those feelings.

I hope to see the LDS church continue to grow in the flow of modern society. With women equality in the spotlight, who knows what kind of topics will be stir in the headlines.

 

Below are the articles I referenced:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/us/a-growing-role-for-mormon-women.html?referrer=

http://www.theguardian.com/world/us-news-blog/2012/jun/04/mormons-march-gay-pride-parade

Rainforest Alliance draws attention through viral video

For a company selling the vision that the “people and the environment prosper together,” you’d think it would be hard to catch the average Joe’s attention. The Rainforest Alliance’s new viral video takes a different approach.

It plays on the average person’s idea to try to make a small difference in the world. “You recycle, you drive a Prius, but you use your bike when you can.” But, as the video relays, a small part of you doesn’t feel like your doing enough.

The video shares the fake story of an average guy who sees that the rainforest is being destroyed in massive amounts by the minute and wants to make a difference. “Here’s what you’re NOT going to do,” the video states. You’re not going to quit your job, leave your family for South America to find the heart of the rainforest (as the man asks Siri, “Find the heart of the rainforest”), or become an “honorary native” just like Avatar or Dances with Wolves.

One realistic thing you can do though is “follow the frog.” This phrase is their main message, directing their audience to use products that have the Rainforest Alliance Certified stamp on them.

The video shows a variety of products which are approved by the Rainforest Alliance. Small steps can make a big difference. In other words, don’t waste your time trying to do something completely unattainable like saving the rainforest. Instead, save the rainforest realistically. “Just, follow the frog.”

In my PR opinion, it was smart for them to create this comical video engaging all kinds of viewers, but to also include statistics along the way. It was quirky and eye-catching. While you have your viewer’s attention, give them something to think about. It definitely caught my attention.

They also have a great presence on social media sites and a killer blog called “The Frog Blog.” Check them out below.

https://www.facebook.com/RainforestAlliance

http://thefrogblog.org/

California’s proposed bill may potentially harm SeaWorld

In a recent blog post, Kasandra Callaway talks about California’s new proposed bill to ban orcas from performing in theme parks, as well as to ban breeding and the import and export of these whales. Callaway talks about the impact the documentary Blackfish had on individuals nationwide, as well as one politician specifically, Richard Bloom, a state legislator representing West LA region of California. It’s because of Bloom’s passion that this bill is underway.

Callaway also talks about the justice for other animals such as dolphins, who are held in small cement pools, just as orcas are. “The confinement is what drives their stress, creating them to lash out and become violent…”

Callaway also mentions the many pros and cons if the bill were passed. One of the cons, or pros, is that it will end breeding for all marine mammals, which is used, in part, for scientific research. One con is that it will allow orcas who are already free to remain free.

“The documentary has lead viewers worldwide to second guess their next vacation destination,” Callaway stated. This statement, to me, speaks volumes for SeaWorld and San Diego’s reputation. Not only is SeaWorld potentially in danger of losing the spark that brings audiences to them, the orca shows, but San Diego is at a huge loss for tourism. Two of San Diego’s main attractions are the San Diego Zoo and SeaWorld; both of which keep animals captive. Losing one or both of those attractions loses a huge revenue of tourists as well as brand reputation for the city of San Diego.

Already, my Facebook feed is buzzing with a link to sign an online petition, which states, “Enact the Orca Welfare and Safety Act to make it illegal to hold orcas in captivity for performance or entertainment purposes.”

Though this is not good public relations for SeaWorld, I hope that they make some sort of public statement on the welfare of their orcas held captive. To Blackfish advocates, SeaWorld isn’t a vacation destination anyone will think about going to ever again, but maybe SeaWorld can change the public’s opinion.

 

Read Kasandra Callaway’s blog post here:

California Bill Seeks to make justice for Orca’s

Share a REAL moment with Coke

Talk about irony. Coca Cola recently released a video telling viewers to take a break from social media, which happened to be buzzing online and via social media. In the video, they advertise their new product, the “social media guard,” which really looks like a human version of a dog’s cone of shame.

The idea behind the social media guard is that it “takes the social out of media.” The video pokes fun at how phone-obsessive our society has become. We are constantly looking at our phones, staying “connected” with loved ones through social media apps, when in reality, we’re sitting right next to them.

The video dramatically shows the positivity through wearing the social media guard and the connectivity it brings people once they aren’t able to look down at their phones anymore. “Share a real moment with Coca Cola,” is the final slogan for the video.

It’s a big change from the controversial and emotional “America the Beautiful” Super Bowl commercial.

Yet, it’s funny to see Coca Cola, a soda company, leaping in a different direction, not disregarding the message of connectivity that Coke usually sends, but through a comical made-up product.

According to the TIME article, “Coke Wants You To Wear This Huge Funnel Around Your Neck,” soda sales fell 1 percent in North America last year, giving reason to their wave of stand-out advertising.

I found this video very intriguing. It was quirky and different from the usual Coke commercials, which try to evoke a relationship with others through Coke. In my PR opinion, this was a smart move for Coca Cola. I think it attracts a different audience, which is ideal for Coke in a time when organic food and “going green” is becoming trendy. Heck, even I’ve gone vegan and haven’t relied on soda for my caffeine intake in years. Maybe, Coca Cola will get me to start drinking it again… Rum anyone? 

Check out the other two articles I referenced:

http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/coke-finds-way-cure-your-social-media-addiction-andor-stop-you-licking-your-stitches-155818

http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/038a0016-ec35-45e9-8a6d-46e445af8efb.aspx?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Facebook buys WhatsApp. Smart PR move?

Is Facebook turning into a monopoly? With their recent inquiry to buy Snapchat (and denial), their $1 billion Instagram buy, and their brand new $19 billion offer for WhatsApp messaging app, they’re taking over the social media world.

And yes, you read that right. They offered 19 billion dollars for the popular messaging app.

My first question was: Why would Facebook want to buy a mobile messaging device? They already have a messaging tool for their own Facebook app. As Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, announced over an investors call, “Facebook has been on a journey to become a mobile company.” He went on to explain that with the Instagram buy they learned that the app works great independently, which is what they plan to do with WhatsApp. It will remain separate from Facebook.

Facebook doesn’t just want to take over the social media world, but own the mobile app world.

As for competition with Facebook’s own messenger, Zuckerberg doesn’t see it that way. “We think those are two pretty big and different use cases and that the world needs both.” He went on to explain that Facebook messenger is used for Facebook friends while WhatsApp is used for all contacts including mobile device contacts.

Was this a smart PR move for Facebook? Why is that even a question? Any move to strengthen their target audience of social media and app users is a start in the right direction. Facebook is so widely used by young adults and teenagers, which is why taking over any sort of competition gives them one more step up to taking over the mobile app world.

 

Check out the two articles I used for this blog:

http://www.dailydot.com/business/facebook-whatsapp-investorcall/?utm_source=outbrainRSS&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=MainRSS

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/19/technology/social/facebook-whatsapp/index.html

What offends me…

As I was looking through TIME online, I found the article, “This Is the Urban Outfitters T-Shirt That Has People Going Apologetic.” Obviously, the title was catchy; so, I took a further look.

Urban Outfitters recently displayed the crop top with the word “depression” collaged all over it. Twitter soon exploded. Tweets compared the “depressed” shirt to another shirt that read, “Eat Less,” which became controversial back in 2010.

I was instantly disgusted. Urban Outfitters already has a reputation of selling t-shirts with offensive comments. In my opinion, it just doesn’t make sense why they display culturally sensitive clothing when their main consumers are young adults.

Both t-shirts offended me, but the “Eat Less” shirt even more. In a PR standpoint, selling those types of shirts sends consumers the wrong message about Urban Outfitters’ brand image. UO’s models are already skinny and sad-looking, but to cross that line, conforming to the already pressured society to be skinnier, really offends me.

Young woman already get enough pressure from the media to be skinnier, prettier, or more fit. To sell a shirt suggesting that consumers get skinnier by eating less is just ridiculous.

At least Urban Outfitters is on top of their Twitter game. Just a few hours after the above tweet was posted @UrbanOutfitters tweeted, “Hey everyone, we hear you and we are taking the shirt down from the site.” Later on UO tweeted that the “depression” t-shirt was designed by a brand named Depression. UO also included the Depression brand website and stated that they were no longer displaying the t-shirt.

The next day, they apologized, and again referenced the Depression website where they bought the t-shirt from. “We were trying to support a small brand, not glamorize mental illness in any way” (HuffingtonPost).

In a PR perspective, it was smart of them to take the down the shirt due to the many offended consumers, as well as apologize for the incident. But UO’s reputation is cutting it close. If a brand has a reputation of selling offensive clothing, own up to it. They make it seem like they keep making these buyer mistakes, but they just keep buying clothing that offends people, taking it down and then apologizing. It’s becoming a repeated cycle. You’d think a big company such as Urban Outfitters would try to understand their target consumer’s concerns and fix the buyer problem. So much for consumer awareness.

Check out Huffington Post article I referenced:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/06/urban-outfitters-depression-shirt_n_4550875.html#slide=1441952

Flappy Bird: An addictive app or a genius PR stunt?

What was all the hype with Flappy Bird?

I downloaded it in hopes that it would become my next procrastination tool, but was quickly disappointed.

It looked like a late ’80s version of Super Mario and took way more concentration then I was willing to provide for my homework. But, here I am talking about the mysterious game that flew up to the most downloaded app, then was gone within a matter of weeks.

Dong Nguyen, maker of the hit app, warned that he would remove the addicting game. “I am sorry ‘Flappy Bird’ users, 22 hours from now, I will take ‘Flappy Bird’ down. I cannot take this anymore” (@dongatory). What he can’t take anymore of, I’m not sure. I only wish I could make a ridiculously addicting game that made $50,000 a day (Forbes.com).

After a few tweets, he remained silent, kept to his word and removed Flappy Bird from app stores.

Was Flappy Bird a genius marketing/PR ploy? In a Forbes article, writer Paul Tassi talks about how Flappy Bird is similar to the “Disney vault syndrome” where fans are racing to get their hands on the dvd, or in this case the app, before it is “locked away,” or removed, forever.

While Flappy Bird may be gone, how popular did that game just get within a matter of hours? Not only that, but Nguyen gained an additional 60,000 Twitter followers after announcing the deletion of the game (Forbes.com).

Talk about a monstrous success for Nguyen. When he decides to create another game and announces it via Twitter, how many Flappy Bird addicts will find out about it first but his Twitter followers, all 170,000+, as of today (February 16).

In my opinion, this was a great PR stunt. Nguyen targeted his audience, driving straight to the top of the app download charts and then announced the removal, giving enough time for band-wagoners to jump on the Flappy Bird train. Even I was wondering what all the hype was about. Now I have the ridiculous game on my phone, afraid to delete it in case my procrastination fever comes back.

Check out the NY Times blog post “Flappy Bird Soars, Then Disappears, Along With a Weekend” that grabbed my attention: